[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100526184358.GC6232@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:43:58 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing
spin_unlock_irqrestore
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Why are "readl"s protected by spinlock anyway ? Can't we just move the locking
> past the code above ?
Good question - and there seems to be a deadlock waiting to happen -
sa1111_wake() re-takes the same lock.
I think we should kill all the spinlock in sa1111_resume().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists